^  \ 


0  ■ 
0  ; 

1 

0 
8 
3 

1 
9 
0 


is    ^ 


U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE, 

BUREAU  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY.— BULLETIN  No.  91. 

A.  D.  MELVIN,  Chief  of  Bureau. 


iv» 


.   c    J 


rtEDING  PRICKLY  PEAR  TO  STOCK 

IN  TEXAS. 


BY 


DAVID  GRIFFITHS, 


Assistant  in  Charge  of  Range  and  Cactus  Investigations,  Farm  Management 
Investigations,  Bureau  of  Plant  Industry. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT   PRINTING   OFFICE. 
1906. 


U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE, 

BUREAU  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY.— Bulletin  No.  91. 

A.  D.  MELVIN,  Chief  op  Bureau. 


FEEDING  PRICKLY  PEAR  TO  STOCK 

IN  TEXAS. 


BY 


DAVID  GRIFFITHS, 

Assistant  in  Charge  of  Range  and.  Cactus  [nvestigations.  Farm  Management 
Investigations ,  Bureau  of  Plant  Industry. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT    PRINTING   OFFICE. 
1906. 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL. 


U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture, 

Bureau  of  Animal  Industry, 
Washington,  D.  C,  July  28,  1906. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  and  to  recommend  for 
piibHcation  as  a  bulletin  of  this  Bureau  a  manuscript  entitled  "Feed- 
ing Prickly  Pear  to  Stock  in  Texas,"  by  David  Griffiths,  assistant  in 
charge  of  Range  and  Cactus  Investigations,  Farm  Management 
Investigations,  Bureau  of  Plant  Industry.  The  accompanying  letter 
from  the  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Plant  Industry  explains  why,  although 
the  work  was  done  under  the  supervision  of  that  Bureau,  it  seems 
desirable  to  publish  the  paper  as  a  bulletin  of.  the  Bureau  of  Animal 
Industry. 

Respectfully,  A.  D.  Melvin, 

Chief  of  Bureau. 
Hon.  James  Wilson, 

Secretary  of  Agriculture. 


LETTER  OF  SUBMITTAL. 


U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture, 

Bureau  of  Plant  Industry, 
Washington,  D.  C,  July  5,  1906. 

Sir:  I  have  the  pleasure  to  transmit  the  manuscript  of  a  paper 
entitled  ''Feeding  Prickly  Pear  to  Stock  in  Texas,"  and  recommend 
that  it  be  published  as  a  bulletin  of  the  series  of  your  Bureau.  The 
investigations  reported  here  are  necessarily  dual  in  character  and  deal 
with  a  subject  partially  within  the  province  of  investigation  of  both 
bureaus.  It  is  a  subject  upon  which  we  needed  more  information 
before  proceeding  further  with  investigations  into  the  value  of  vari- 
ous species  of  cacti  as  farm  and  range  crops.  Inasmuch  as  the  paper 
deals  primarily  with  the  animal  side  of  the  subject,  I  submit  it  to  you 
for  publication. 

The  paper  was  prepared  by  Dr.  David  Griffiths,  assistant  in  charge 
of  Range  and  Cactus  Investigations,  and  has  been  submitted  by  the 
agriculturist  in  charge  of  Farm  Management  Investigations  with  a 
view  to  its  publication.  It  is  a  continuation  of  Bulletin  No.  74  of 
the  Bureau  of  Plant  Industry,  which  gives  an  account  of  the  practice 
of  stockmen  in  the  use  of  cacti  as  forage  plants,  particularly  in  south- 
west Texas,  where  most  of  the  cactus  is  fed. 

The  present  paper  gives  an  account  of  some  experiments  conducted 
by  stockmen  at  the  suggestion  and  under  the  direction  of  this  Bureau. 
The  results  of  these  experiments  are  of  unusual  interest.  The  experi- 
ment with  dairy  cows  was  made  in  such  a  manner  as  to  compare  the 
cactus  directly  with  sorghum  hay.  The  two  animals  under  experi- 
ment were  fed  at  the  beginning  both  cactus  and  sorghum.  Their 
feed  was  then  gradually  changed  to  cactus.  Afterwards  one  of  them 
continued  to  receive  cactus,  while  the  other  was  changed  gradually 
to  sorghum  hay.  After  a  period  of  such  feeding  the  feeds  were  gradu- 
ally interchanged.  During  the  whole  of  this  test  both  cows  were  fed 
a  mixed  grain  ration  in  addition  to  the  roughage. 

Generally  speaking,  the  results  indicate  that  cactus  ad  libitum 
produces  a  little  better  results  in  milk  flow  than  sorghum  hay  ad 
libitum,  both  with  sufficient  grain,  though  the  differences  are  small. 

3 


4  LETTER    OF   TRANSMITTAL. 

The  results  indicate  that  6  pounds  of  fresh  cactus  are  equivalent 
in  feeding  value  to  1  pound  of  dry  sorghum  hay.  The  test  with 
beef  cattle  was  undertaken  to  ascertain  the  cost  of  fattening  cattle 
on  cactus  and  cotton-seed  meal,  a  common  practice  in  the  region 
where  the  cactus  is  mostly  fed.  The  carload  of  steers  used  in  the 
test  made  only  moderate  gains,  averaging  1  f  pounds  daily  for  each 
head  during  the  fattening  period.  The  very  interesting  result  was 
obtained,  however,  that  this  gain  was  made  at  a  cost  of  a  little  less 
than  3i  cents  a  pound. 

In  both  cases  the  results  indicate  that  stockmen  are  justified  in 
making  use  of  cactus  as  an  efl&cient  and  cheap  source  of  nutriment 
for  cattle. 

Further  studies  of  cacti,  including  a  large  number  of  chemical 
analyses  from  a  feed-stuff  standpoint,  are  nearly  completed,  and  the 
results  will  be  ready  for  publication  in  the  near  future. 
Respectfully, 

B.  T.  Galloway, 

Chief  of  Bureau. 

Dr.  A.  D.  Melvin, 

Chief,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry. 


PREFACE. 


The  evident  value  of  prickly  pear  as  a  forage,  judging  by  the  experi- 
ence of  many  who  have  fed  this  material,  the  urgent  demand  for 
information  concerning  it,  and  the  lack  of  experimental  data  from 
which  a  reasonable  estimate  of  the  food  value  can  be  made,  rendered 
experimental  feeding  highly  desirable.  The  difficulties  in  conducting 
such  an  experiment  were  manifold.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  highly 
desirable  that  the  cattle  used  should  be  accustomed  to  the  feed.  The 
only  section  of  the  country  in  which  such  cattle  could  be  found  was 
far  removed  from  any  experiment  station.  Trained  experimenters 
who  were  familiar  with  cactus  feeding  were  wholly  wanting.  Fortu- 
nately, however,  a  number  of  persons  who  had  fed  cactus  for  many 
years  in  southwest  Texas  appreciated  fully  the  value  of  the  informa- 
tion sought  and  were  willing  not  only  to  furnish  the  cattle  and  pro- 
vide the  feed,  but  to  attend  to  the  details  of  the  feeding  and  weighing. 

In  the  experiment  with  dairy  cows  conditions  were  such  that  it  was 
impossible  to  feed  more  than  two  cows  experimentally.  Yet  a  careful 
inspection  of  the  results  show  that  the  care  with  which  Mr.  Sinclair 
carried  out  the  details  of  the  work  renders  the  results  of  great  value 
as  an  indication  of  the  possible  value  of  prickly  pear  as  a  feed  for 
dairy  cows.  It  is  shown  that  a  ration  producing  between  1^  and  1^ 
pounds  of  butter  a  day  cost  in  the  neighborhood  of  13  cents  when 
pear,  rice  bran,  and  cotton-seed  meal  was  fed. 

Although  prickly  pear  is  low  in  nutritive  value  from  the  chemical 
standpoint,  the  steer-feeding  experiment  also  shows  that  there  is 
abundant  justification  of  the  practices  in  vogue  of  preparing  cattle 
for  market  upon  prickly  pear  and  cotton-seed  meal.  A  gain  of  IJ 
pounds  a  day  at  an  expense  of  3^  cents  a  pound  compares  very  favor- 
ably with  feeding  results  obtained  with  standard  feeds. 

W.  J.  Spillman, 
Agriculturist  in  C/harge  of  Farm  Management  Investigations. 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  witin  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.arcliive.org/details/feedingpricklyOOgrifiala 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

Introduction 9 

Tlic  poar  fed 9 

Prickly  pear  in  the  ration  of  dairy  cows 11 

Conditions  of  tlie  experiment _ 11 

Method  of  feeding 12 

Feeding  periods 12 

Daily  record  for  Period  I 14 

Daily  record  for  Period  IV 14 

Comparison  of  different  periods 15 

Cost  of  feed 16 

Peculiarities  noted  in  feeding 17 

Condition  of  the  animals 17 

Influence  of  pear  on  quality  of  milk .' 18 

Prickh'  pear  in  ration  of  beef  cattle 18 

Conditions  of  the  experiment 18 

Method  of  feeding 19 

Weighing 19 

Shipment  and  sale  of  steers 20 

The  feeds  us(>d 20 

General  observations 20 

The  nature  of  chopped  pear 22 

7 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 


PLATES. 

Page. 

1 .  Cows  used  in  the  milking  test 12 

2.  Fig.  1. — Some  of  the  beef  cattle  used  in  the  feeding  experiments.     Fig.  2. — 

Field  of  prickly  pear  on  the  Sinclair  ranch 16 

3.  Fig.  1 . — Machinery  ready  to  chop  pear.     Fig.  2. — Chopped  pear  ready  for  feeding .         20 

TEXT   FIGURE. 

1.  Diagram  showing  average  yield  of  milk  of  cows  Nos.  12  and  13  during  periods  I, 

II,  III,  and  IV 15 


FEEDING  PRICKLY  PEAR  TO  STOCK  IN  TEXAS. 


INTRODUCTION. 

Bulletin  No.  74  of  the  Bureau  of  Plant  Industry  suggested  in  a 
brief,  popular  way  some  of  the  more  important  features  of  the  prob- 
lem of  utilizing  cacti  as  feed  for  live  stock.  The  present  paper  is  a 
continuation  of  that  publication,  designed  to  furnish  information 
upon  one  feature  of  the  problem  treated  but  slightly  in  the  bulletin 
mentioned. 

In  the  data  here  presented  the  aim  has  been  to  secure  a  record  of 
the  value  of  pear  as  commonly  fed.  It  has  not  been  the  main  pur- 
pose to  determine  the  best  methods  of  feeding  this  forage  plant. 
In  the  experiments  outlined  the  endeavor  was  made  to  change  cur- 
rent practice  no  more  than  was  necessary  to  secure  the  essential 
data.  To  determine  accurately  the  value  of  prickly  pear  as  a  dairy 
or  fattening  ration  would  require  more  elaborate  experiments.  It 
has  been  the  aim. to  give  here  simply  a  record  of  what  the  rancher 
realizes  from  his  pear  by  the  ordinary  methods  of  feeding,  though 
such  other  data  as  the  records  have  revealed  have  been  noted. 

Two  experiments  are  outlined,  both  conducted  under  the  imme- 
diate supervision  of  ranchers  in  southern  Texas  in  cooperation  with 
the  Bureau  of  Plant  Industry.  The  first  test  was  undertaken  by 
Mr.  Alexander  Sinclair,  of  San  Antonio,  to  whom  the  greatest  credit 
is  due,  not  only  for  the  conduct  of  the  work  but  also  for  assist- 
ance in  planning  the  experiments  and  for  suggestions  in  connection 
with  the  interpretation  of  results.  The  actual  work  was  performed 
under  his  immediate  direction  by  his  son,  Mr.  William  Sinclair.  The 
second  test  was  conducted  by  Mr.  T.  A.  Coleman  upon  his  ranch  at 
Encinal.  The  feeding  was  done  under  Mr.  Coleman's  immediate 
supervision,  and  to  his  interest  and  varied  experience  is  due  whatever 
success  has  been  attained. 

THE  PEAR  FED. 

There  is  such  confusion  in  the  scientific  disposition  of  the  prickly 
pears  that  it  geems  almost  hazardous  to  venture  an  opinion  regard- 
ing the  proper  names  of  even  such  common  and  conspicuous  species 
as  those  or  southern  Texas.     After  studying  the  forms  for  two  years, 

5886— No.  91—06 2  9 


10  FEEDING    PRICKLY    PEAR    TO    STOCK    IN    TEXAS. 

however,  the  writer  believes  that  lie  can  readily  determine  all  the 
species  growing  in  the  region  and  fed  in  these  experiments.  There 
is,  however,  such  variation  in  the  limitation  of  the  species  consid- 
ered in  these  pages  that  it  may  be  advisable  to  note  more  than  one 
species  in  what  is  here  called  Ojmntia  lindheimeri  Engelm. 

There  are  usually  recognized  in  this  region  two  species  of  prickly 
pear,  known,  respectively,  as  Opuniia  macrorhiza  Engelm."  and 
Opuntia  lindheimeri  Engelm.  The  former  is  a  small,  prostrate,  usually 
tuberous-rooted  species,  of  no  special  economic  importance.  The 
latter  has  at  least  two  forms  more  or  less  distinct,  one  with  yellow 
spines  and.  the  other  with  spines  red  or  brown  at  the  base.  The 
yellow-spined  form  is  the  typical  Opuntia  lindheimeri,  as  originally 
described  by  Doctor  Englemann,  and  the  latter  corresponds  more 
closely  with  what  was  originally  named  Opuntia  engelmannii  Salm, 
although  it  differs  considerably  from  the  typical  form''  of  that 
species  as  it  occurs  in  the  type  locality  in  northern  Chihuahua.  Both 
of  these  forms  are  at  present  considered  by  a  majority  of  botanists 
to  be  the  same  species. 

Besides  these,  there  is  a  form  which  has  also  been  included  under 
Opuntia  lindheimeri  having  spines  reddish-brown  throughout,  with 
joints  somewhat  smaller  and  less  prolific  at  least  in  a  state  of  nature. 
This  form  is  also  less  thorny  on  the  average  than  the  larger-jointed 
yellow-spined  variety,  and  forms  a  large  part  of  what  is  popularly 
called  "blue  pear"  in  southern  Texas.  However,  all  blue  pear  does 
not  have  brown  spines,  for  the  smoother  and  more  glaucous  forms  of 
the  yellow-spined  variety  are  also  included  under  this  name.  All  of 
these  forms — those  with  yellow  spines,  with  brown  spines,  and  with 
yellow  spines  brown  at  the  base — have  fruits  which  are  normally 
reddish-purple  throughout;  but  there  is  a  yellow-spined  form  having 
green  fruits,  tinged  with  purple  outside  and  greenish-yellow  within; 
its  seeds  also  differ  very  radically  from  what  we  consider  typical  for 
the  species,  being  about  twice  as  large,  the  difference  in  size  being 
made  up  very  largely  in  the  margin.  This  form  is  not  to  be  distin- 
guished in  any  way  from  the  typical  yellow-spined  form  by  any 
habit,  spine,  or  spicule  character.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
reproductive  characters  are  supposed  to  be  reasonably  constant,  the 
inclination  is  to  consider  this  also  a  variety  of  Opuntia  lindheimeri. 

a  It  seems  better  to  retain  this  name  until  such  time  as  the  synonymy  of  the  group  can 
be  satisfactorily  determined.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  plant  in  question  is  the  one  to 
which  the  name  was  originally  applied. 

b  Type  specimens  when  they  become  old  yield  but  little  information  regarding  the  color 
of  the  spines,  for  after  being  preserved  for  some  time  all  the  spines  turn  black.  This  is 
true  of  the. types  of  Opuntia  lindheimeri  which  have  been  examined  in  the  herbarium  of 
the  Missouri  Botanical  Garden.  Accurate  conceptions  of  these  features  must  therefore 
be  secured  by  a  study  of  living  plants  in  the  type  localities. 


PRICKLY    PEAR    IN    RATION    OF    DAIRY    COWS.  11 

In  addition  to  those  mentioned,  there  is  a  distinct  species  which  it 
is  beHeved  has  not  heretofore  been  recognized  by  botanists.  This  is 
common  south  and  east  of  Cotulla,  Tex.,  and  consequently  is  found 
growing  in  the  Encinal  region,  where  one  of  the  experiments  was 
conducted.  It  is  very  distinct  from  the  species  previously  mentioned, 
with  which  it  is  always  associated.  It  is  diflferent  in  general  appear- 
ance, as  well  as  in  its  more  strictly  botanical  characters,  being  the 
tallest,  most  woody,  and  most  loosely  branched  of  the  prickly  pears 
of  southern  Texas.  It  is  characterized  by  circular  joints  and  by 
single,  erect,  long,  straw-colored,  translucent,  bonelike  spines,  which 
occasionally  have  a  tinge  of  red  at  the  base.  It  blooms  and  matures 
its  fruit  four  to  six  weeks  later  than  the  forms  of  Opuntia  lindheimeri, 
the  most  common  of  the  Texas  pears,  and  its  fruit  is  smaller  and 
more  nearly  globular.  This  plant  is  almost  universally  known  among 
the  Mexican  population  of  this  section  as  "  cacanapa."  It  will  doubt- 
less be  described  as  a  new  species,  in  which  case  it  would  be  advisable 
to  use  "cacanapa"  as  the  specific  name. 

All  of  these  forms  included  under  Opuntia  lindheimeri  were  iised  in 
these  experiments,  the  yellow-spined  or  typical  one  predominating 
in  the  rations.  More  of  the  brown-spined  form  was  fed  at  Encinal 
than  at  San  Antonio,  although  considerable  of  it  was  fed  at  the  latter 
place.  At  Encinal  some  cacanapa  was  fed,  but  probably  not  more 
than  1  or  2  per  cent  of  the  ration. 

PRICKLY  PEAR  IN  RATION  OF  DAIRY  COWS. 
CONDITIONS    OF    THE    EXPERIMENT. 

The  two  cows  selected  for  the  experiment  were  secured  from  Mr. 
Sinclair's  herd  of  about  100  head.  As  it  was  desirable  to  have  gentle 
cattle,  the  selection  was  made  especially  with  this  point  in  view. 
They  were,  however,  typical  specimens  of  the  herd  in  other  respects 
and  were  known  upon  the  ranch  as  Nos.  12  and  13.  They  are  both 
Holstein- Jersey  stock.  In  No.  12  Holstein  characters  predominated 
decidedly,  while  in  No.  13  Jersey  characteristics  were  more  prominent. 
No.  13  was  6  years  old  and  dropped  calf  November  27;  No.  12  was  7 
years  old  and  dropped  calf  December  6.  They  were  thoroughly 
accustomed  to  pear  pastures  and  had  been  fed  singed  pear  for  two 
to  four  months  each  winter.      (See  pi.  1.) 

During  the  feeding  period  the  cows  were  kept  in  separate  sheds, 
opening  to  the  east  into  small  pens  about  10  yards  square.  There 
were  feeding  troughs  in  the  sheds  and  a  constant  supply  of  water  was 
kept  in  the  pens.  On  the  whole  the  sheds  were  a  little  more  exposed 
than  the  barn  where  the  general  herd  was  kept,  but  the  herd  was 
turned  out  every  night  except  during  the  coldest  weather,  while  the 
test  cows  had  their  choice  of  shed  or  pen. 


12  FEEDING    PRICKLY    PEAR    TO    STOCK    IN    TEXAS. 

To  accustom  the  animals  to  their  new  quarters  they  were  removed 
from  the  herd  and  put  in  these  pens  one  week  before  record  keeping 
was  begun.  They  were  perfectly  contented  from  the  start.  In  order 
to  secure  uniformity  the  same  person  did  the  milking  during  the 
entire  experiment. 

METHOD    OF    FEEDING. 

The  pear  was  singed  in  the  field  with  a  gasoline  torch  (see  pi.  2, 
fig.  2),  cut  and  hauled  to  the  barnyard,  and  unloaded  in  a  pile  on  the 
barn  floor,  from  which  it  was  fed  as  desired.  A  load  was  sufficient 
for  a  week  or  ten  days.  This  method  kept  the  pear  at  a  lower,  more 
uniform  temperature,  no  doubt,  than  that  which  was  fed  to  the 
remainder  of  the  herd.  The  pear  in  the  building  during  the  pro- 
longed cold  weather  in  January  did  not  heat  up  during  the  day  as 
much  as  that  standing  in  the  field.  The  difference,  however,  was 
very  slight,  except  during  the  coldest  weather  indicated  in  the  tables, 
when  the  pear  kept  indoors  was  frozen  from  twenty-four  to  forty- 
eight  hours  longer  than  that  in  the  field.  Each  feed  was  weighed 
separately  at  the  time  of  feeding. 

At  feeding  time  the  material  was  placed  in  a  box  and  chopped 
with  a  spade  into  pieces  of  a  convenient  size  for  the  animals  to  eat, 
usually  the  equivalent  to  2  or  3  inches  square.  The  grain  was  inva- 
riably fed  at  milking  time,  and  a  ration  of  roughage  consisting  of  pear 
or  sorghum  hay,  or  both,  was  fed  three  times  each  day.  Pear  was 
always  fed  after  milking  morning  and  evening,  and  about  midday. 
It  was  the  purpose  during  the  entire  period  to  feed  all  the  pear  the 
cows  would  eat,  with  a  definite  ration  of  grain  and  hay,  or  of  grain 
alone.  There  was  consequently  some  pear  left  in  the  boxes  each 
morning.  This  was  always  cleaned  out  and  deducted  from  the  pre- 
vious day's  ration.  It  is  usual  when  feeding  for  beef  to  sprinkle  the 
meal  over  the  chopped  pear,  but  this  could  not  be  done  here,  for  it 
was  the  purpose  to  get  as  much  information  as  possible  regarding 
the  quantity  of  pear  which  the  animals  would  consume  with  a  definite 
grain  and  hay  ration,  or  without  the  latter.  The  meal  could  not, 
therefore,  be  fed  with  the  pear  on  account  of  the  waste  which  would 
occur  and  the  indefinite  character  of  the  results  so  far  as  the  quantity 
of  grain  fed  was  concerned. 

FEEDING    PERIODS. 

The  first  period  covered  twenty  days,  beginning  January  25  and 
ending  February  13.  During  this  period  the  cows  were  fed,  as  they 
had  been  during  the  forty-seven  days  immediately  preceding  the 
experiment,  rations  consisting  of  rice  bran,  cotton-seed  meal,  a  small 
feed  of  sorghum  hay,  and  all  the  prickly  pear  they  would  eat.  During 
the  next  four  days  the  sorghum  hay  was  gradually  reduced  so  that  by 


BuL.  No.  91,  B.  A.  I. 


Plate  1. 


Fig.  1. — Cow  No.  12. 


Fig.  2.— Cow  No.  13. 

Cows  Used  in  the  Milking  Test. 

I'holographod  February  22,  1905. 


FEEDINO   PERIODS.  13 

February  18,  when  the  second  period  began,  cactus  formed  the  only 
roughage  fed.  Period  II  extended  over  eighteen  days.  During  the 
twelve  days  immediately  following  Period  II  the  roughage  fed  cow 
No.  12  was  gradually  changed  from  cactus  to  sorghum  hay,  so  that 
during  the  third  period  of  the  experiment,  which  lasted  fourteen  days, 
the  roughage  fed  cow  No.  12  consisted  entirely  of  sorghum  haj^,  while 
that  fed  cow  No.  13  consisted  entirely  of  cactus.  During  the  seven 
days  between  Periods  III  and  IV  the  roughage  of  each  cow  was  com- 
pletely changed,  in  the  case  of  one  from  sorghum  hay  to  cactus,  and 
in  the  other  from  cactus  to  sorghum  hay.  Period  IV  lasted  fifteen 
days. 

It  will  be  noted  that  these  cows  at  the  close  of  the  first  period  of 
this  experiment  had  been  fed  without  change  of  ration  for  sixty-seven 
days.  During  the  experiment  the  roughage  fed  each  cow  was  changed 
first  to  cactus  alone,  and  then  to  sorghum  hay  alone.  In  the  case  of 
cow  No.  12  the  roughage  was  changed  back  to  cactus  alone  during 
the  last  period.  It  is  notable  that  the  normal  milk  flow  was  hardly 
interrupted  during  the  whole  experiment  and  that  the  yield  of  milk 
was  satisfactory  throughout,  except  for  a  slight  decrease  just  at  the 
close  of  Period  I,  evidently  due  to  unusually  cold  weather. 

In  the  following  tabular  statements  it  has  been  thought  wise,  since 
the  data  are  available,  to  include  the  daily  record  for  Periods  I  and 
IV,  inasmuch  as  this  is,  we  believe,  the  first  published  account  of 
pear-feeding  data.  Ordinarily  one  period  would  be  sufficient  for  this, 
but  two  are  included  on  account  of  the  excessively  low  temperatures 
of  late  January  and  early  February,  introducing  variations  which 
would  not  ordinarily  occur.  Since  the  excessively  low  temperatures 
influenced  results  so  materially,  the  United  States  Weather  Bureau 
observations  at  San  Antonio  are  incorporated  up  to  February  13, 
1905,  for  convenient  reference  in  interpreting  the  decrease  in  milk 
flow  during  the  first  two  or  three  weeks  of  the  experiment. 


14 


FEEDING    PRICKLY    PEAR    TO    STOCK    IN    TEXAS. 


Daily  Record  for  Period  I. 

During  this  period  the  cows  were  upon  the  same  feed  they  had  been  accustomed  to  at  this 
time  of  the  year.  They  had  been  fed  this  ration  since  December  9.  Besides  the  feed  tabu- 
lated bt;low,  cow  No.  12  got  12  pounds  of  rice  bran  and  3  pounds  of  cotton-seed  meal,  with 
the  exception  of  the  liist  two  days  of  the  period,  when  she  would  eat  only  11  pounds  of  rice 
bran.  Cow  No.  13  was  started  in  at  12  pounds  of  rice  bran  and  3  pounds  of  cotton-seed 
meal,  but  the  rice  bean  was  decreased  to  10  pounds  on  January  28  and  to  8  pounds  on  Feb- 
ruary 6,  because  8  pounds  of  rice  bran  was  all  that  she  would  clean  up.  It  was  the  purpose 
to  feed  all  the  sorghum  hay  and  pear  that  the  cows  would  eat  during  this  period. 


Butter  fat  in  milk.       j    Amount  of  roughage  fed. 

Atmos- 
pheric 
tempera- 
ture. 

lYield  of  milk. 
Date.            'f 

Per  cent. 

Amount. 

Prickly  pear. 

Sorghum. 

Cow 
No.  12. 

Cow 
No.  13. 

Cow  1  Cow 
No.  j  No. 
12.        13. 

Cow 
No.  12. 

Cow 
No.  13. 

Cow 
No.  12. 

Cow 
No.  13. 

Cow 
No.  12. 

Cow 

No.  13. 

Maxi-  Mini- 
mum, mum. 

1 

1905. 

January  25 

January  26 

January  27 

January  28 

January  29 

January  30 

January  31 

February  1 

February  2 

February  3 

February  4 

February  5 

February  6 

February  7 

February  8 

February  9 

February  10 

February  11 

February  12 

February  13 

Lbs. 
38.0 
37.0 
37.5 
40.0 
43.0 
40.6 
39.9 
41.2 
38.5 
38.6 
36.4 
34.6 
35.9 
36.5 
38.5 
38.8 
35.7 
37.0 
33.8 

a  31. 9 

Lbs. 
33.0 
30.0 
31.5 
32.5 
32.5 
33.0 
31.8 
33.3 
28.9 
29.1 
27.3 
25.9 
25.3 
26.8 
29.5 
29.8 
30.3 
31.0 
27.5 

a  24.0 

3.8 
3.6 
3.6 

3.8 

3.9 
4.2 

4.0 
4.0 
4.0 

4.2 

4.2 
4.3 

Lbs. 
4.28 

8.75 
6.53 

5.83 
4.3 

Lbs. 
3.78 

3.88 

3.76 

4.52 

4.88 
.3.54 

Lbs. 
60 
86 
101 
116 
125 
125 
135 
138 
142 
139 
81 
103 
117 
113 
118 
98 
89 
100 
89 
90 

Lbs. 
62 
90 
101 
116 
125 
125 
130 
137 
139 
149 
88 
105 
138 
139 
133 
124 
109 
114 
96 
92 

Lbs. 
12 
10 
10 

8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
612 

Lbs. 
15 
10 
10 
8 
8 
S 
5 
4 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
5 
2 
3 
3 
4 
5 
612 

'F. 
44 
41 
45 
68 
60 
52 
45 
58 
34 
33 
27 
41 
32 
34 
60 
61 
51 
56 
53 
35 

'F. 
31 
25 
38 
43 
44 
36 
49 
34 
29 
27 
21 
25 
23 
29 
32 
37 
37 
44 
17 
13 

a  The  rapid  decrease  in  milk  flow  toward  the  close  of  this  period  is  doubtless  due  to  the  unusually 
low  temperatures. 
6  Extra  sorghum  hay  fed  on  account  of  frozen  pear. 

Daily  Record  for  Period  IV. 

Period  IV  covered  15  days,  with  cow  No.  12  receiving  all  the  pear  and  cow  No.  13  all  the 
sorghum  hay  they  would  eat.  Cow  No.  12  received  12  pounds  rice  bran  and  3  pounds  cot- 
ton-seed meal  and  cow  No.  13,  8  pounds  rice  bran  and  3  pounds  cotton-seed  meal. 


Date. 


April  10. 
April  11. 
April  12. 
April  13. 
April  14. 
April  15. 
April  16. 
April  17. 
April  18. 
April  19. 
April  20. 
April  21. 
April  22. 
April  23. 
April  24. 


Average . 


Yield  of  milk. 


Cow       Cow 
No.  12.   No.  13. 


Lbs. 
33.6 
35.7 
36.8 
36.2 
36.0 
32.6 
32.4 
30.3 
31.1 
31.6 
33.9 
32.2 
34.4 
33  1 
33.5 


Lbs. 
27.7 
24.4 
28.6 
28.4 
27.8 
27.5 
28.4 
27.0 
27.4 
27.5 
29.4 
27.3 
28.4 
26.6 
28.3 


Butter  fat  in  milk. 


Per  cent. 


Cow       Cow 
No.  12.   No.  13. 


3.6 

3.8 
3.4 
3.2 
3.6 

3.6 


4.0 

3.6 
3.4 

3.8 


3.8 

3.9 
3.2 
3.6 
3.8 


3.8 

3.8 
4.0 

3.7 


Amount. 


Cow       Cow 
No.  12.   No.  13. 


Lbs. 

2.« 

1.39 
1.23 
1.15 
1.17 
1.16 
1.09 
1.11 
1.26 
1..35 
1.15 
1.16 
1.25 
1.27 


Amount  of  roughage  fed. 


Prickly  i)ear. 


Cow       Cow 
No.  12    No.  13. 


Lbs. 

1.98 

1.11 
.90 
1.00 
1.04 

3.47 


1.13  I 
[    2.03  I 


2,6s. 
141 
149 
150 
160 
165 
119 
nCO 
120 
116 
143 
158 
154 
160 
174 
172 


Lbs. 


Sorghum. 


Cow       Cow 

No.  12.   No.  13. 


Lbs. 


149 


Lbs. 


19 
26 
23 
22 
22 
21 
23 
25 
23 
25 
23 
22 
24 
23 
25 


o  Young  joints  not  eaten  not  counted  in  average. 


FEEDING    PERIODS. 


15 


COMPARISON    OF    DIFFERENT    PERIODS. 

The  following  table  shows  the  milk  and  butter  yield  of  the  different 
periods: 


Period. 


I 

II 
III 

IV 


Cow  No.  12. 


Feed. 


Pear  and  sorghum 

Pear 

Sorghum 

Pear 


Average 
daily 

yield  of 
milk. 


Pounds. 
37.6 
35.7 
33.7 
33.5 


Average 

daily 
yield  ol 
butter.o 


Pounds. 

1.08 
1.46 
1.46 
1.43 


Cow  No.  13. 


Feed. 


Average 
daily 

yield  of 
milk. 


'  Pounds. 

Pear  and  sorghum 29.  0 

Pear 29.1 

Pear 29.4 

Sorghum 27.6 


Average 

daily 
yield  of 
butter.o 


Pounds. 
1.43 
1.36 
1.32 
1.24 


o  In  computing  butter  yield,  0.85  pound  of  butter  fat  is  considered  equal  to  1  pound  of  butter. 

If  we  compare  an  average  of  Periods  II  and  IV  with  period  III  for 
cow  No.  12  we  have  an  average  daily  yield  of  34.6  pounds  of  milk 
and  1.445  pounds  of  butter  on  pear,  and  an  average  of  33.7  pounds 
of  milk  and  1.46  pounds  of  butter  on  sorghum.     In  the  case  of  cow 


PERIOD  I-  20  DAYS. 

BOTH  COWS  NO.s  12  AND  13 
rCD  PRICKLY  PEAR  AND  SOR- 
GHUM  HAY 

PERIOD  n- 18  DAYS. 

BOTH  COWS   NOS  12  ANO 
13  FED  PRICKLY   PEAR. 

PERIOD  m- 14  DAYS. 

COW  NO  12  FED  SOR- 
GHUM HAY  AND  COW 
N9  13  PRICKLY  PEAR. 

PERIOD  IV-150AY5. 

cow  N?  12  FED     , 
PRICKLY  PEAR  ANO  N? 
13  30RGHUM  HAY. 

S9 

P 

EJ 

Kf 

)/ 

^N 

0 

s 

ot 

K 

H 

JH 

1 

( 

i> 

^ 

■c 

H 

' 

\ 

p 

/• 

36 

* 

~ 

• 

.. 

. 

^ 

Pt 

JV 

R 

^ 

>. 

- 

, 

34 
33 
32 
SI 
30 
29 
28 
27 
26 

" 

- 

■. 

s 

OF 

)G 

<k 

JM 

PE 

J>. 

R 

^ 

►■ 

' 

- 

■ 

- 

' 

" 

9 

F 

>E 

A 

7 

A 

IMC 

3 

BC 

>f; 

6 

H 

U» 

yt 

'Efi 

R 

4 

h 

s 

r, 

7". 

3 

_ 

,. 

_ 

_ 

P 

Zi 

w 

- 

4 

k 

. 

- 

^ 

- 

* 

" 

S< 

>p 

6 

■i 

J^ 

A 

• 

.± 

. 

Fig.  1.— Diagram  showing  average  yield  of  milk  of  Cows  Nos.  12  and  13  during  Periods  I,  II,  III, 
and  IV.  The  character  of  the  roughage  is  indicated  for  eacli  animal  in  each  period.  The  scale 
showing  the  yield  of  milk  in  pounds  per  day  is  placed  at  the  left.  The  small  circles  indicate  the 
average  yields  for  the  periods.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  decline  in  yield,  which  is  to  be  expected 
as  laictation  advances,  is  not  quite  so  rapid  on  pear  as  it  is  on  sorghum  hay. 

No.  13  the  periods  can  not  be  so  satisfactorily  grouped  to  eliminate 
the  effect  of  advancing  lactation.  The  best  comparison  that  can  be 
made  is  between  an  average  of  Periods  I  and  IV  and  II  and  III,  when 
the  record  shows  the  following: 

Average  for  Periods  I  and  IV  (sorghum  mostly),  28.6  pounds  of 
milk  and  1.335  pounds  of  butter. 

Average  for  Periods  II  and' III  (pear),  29.25  pounds  of  milk  and 
1.340  pounds  of  butter. 

The  relative  milk  flow  can  be  appreciated  more  readily  in  the 
accompanying  diagram  (fig.  1). 


16  FEEDING    PRICKLY    PEAR    TO    STOCK    IN    TEXAS. 

The  tables  and  the  diagram  show: 

(1)  Cow  No.  12  shows  a  gradual  decrease  from  a  pear  and  sorghum 
ration  in  Period  I  to  a  pear  ration  in  Period  II,  but  not  quite  so  rapid 
a  decline  as  took  place  during  Period  III,  when  sorghum  was  fed.  In 
Period  IV,  while  a  decrease  is  shown,  it  is  less  marked  than  in  the 
preceding  sorghum  period. 

(2)  Cow  No.  13  shows  a  slight  decline  in  Period  II  and  an  almost 
complete  recovery  in  Period  III,  but  a  sharp  decline  when  sorghum  is 
fed  in  Period  IV. 

(3)  A  full  roughage  ration  of  pear  with  a  constant  grain  ration 
appears  to  yield  fully  as  good  results  as  a  full  roughage  ration  of  sor- 
ghum hay.  The  records  are  really  a  little  more  favorable  to  the  pear 
ration. 

COST    OF    FEED. 

It  is  impossible  with  our  present  imperfect  knowledge  regarding 
the  rate  of  growth  and  habits  of  prickly  pear  under  cropping  condi- 
tions to  make  an  estimate  which  is  at  all  reliable  regarding  the  cost 
of  this  item  of  the  ration.  In  the  computations,  therefore,  it  is 
deemed  best  to  omit  the  item  of  cost  of  producing  the  crop  of  pear. 
The  estimates  do  not,  therefore,  contain  any  account  of  the  use  of  the 
land  upon  which  the  pear  is  grown.  At  all  events,  this  would  be  in 
accord  with  the  general  sentiment  that  pear  costs  nothing.  This,  of 
course,  is  not  strictly  true,  although  the  rancher  has  as  yet  paid  but 
little  attention  to  prickly  pear  culture.  He  gathers  it  from  his  native 
pastures  as  he  does  his  firewood.  Upon  this  farm,  however,  a  con- 
siderable effort  has  been  made  to  propagate  the  plant,  though  the 
cost  of  the  effort  could  not  be  estimated.  The  cost  of  the  other  items 
of  the  ration  was  as  follows,  the  prices  quoted  being  those  actually 
paid  upon  the  ranch  during  the  time  the  feeding  was  in  progress: 

Per  ton. 

Cotton-seed  meal $22 

Rice  bran 13 

Sorghum  hay 7 

One  man  can  easily  burn  pear  for  100  cows,  and  in  addition  he 
can  assist  in  milking.  He  will  use  about  10  gallons  of  gasoline  each 
day.  During  the  past  winter  this  cost  12  cents  a  gallon.  The  cost 
of  a  day's  rations  for  each  cow  while  pear  without  hay  was  being  fed 
was  as  follows: 

Cents. 

12  pounds  of  rice  bran 7.  8 

3  pounds  of  cotton-seed  meal 3.3 

Labor 75 

Gasoline 1.2 

Total 13. 05 


BuL.  No.  91     B.  A.  I. 


Plate  2. 


Fig.  1.— Some  of  the  Beef  Cattle  Used  in  the  Feeding  Experiments. 


Fig.  2.— Field  of  Prickly  Pear  on  the  Sinclair  Ranch. 


PECULIARITIES    NOTED    IN    FEEDING.  17 

This  estimate  is  a  trifle  high,  as  it  includes  the  cost  of  labor  in 
excess  of  the  time  actually  occupied  in  feeding.  Thirteen  cents  a 
day  will,  therefore,  represent  very  closely  the  entire  cost  of  a  ration 
as  outlined  above.  When  sorghum  hay  was  fed  in  addition  to  the 
pear  the  cost  of  the  feed  was  a  little  higher,  but  as  hay  was  increased 
the  cost  of  labor  and  gasoline  decreased.  It  must  be  remembered, 
also,  that  the  above  estimate  of  13  cents  represents  the  maximum 
cost  of  the  ration  of  the  test  cattle,  and  that  the  computation  of  the 
cost  of  feeding  pear  is  based  upon  actual  experience  on  the  ranch 
during  the  past  several  years. 

PECULIARITIES    NOTED    IN    FEEDING. 

On  April  15  and  16,  when  cow  No.  12  alone  was  on  a  full  roughage 
ration  of  pear,  it  was  observed  that  she  left  more  than  usual  in  the 
trough,  although  she  seemed  to  relish  the  feed.  This  was  at  the 
time  when  young  joints  were  first  fed  in  any  quantity,  and  it  was  soon 
discovered  that  it  was  pieces  of  these  and  not  of  the  older  joints 
that  were  left.  After  this  the  young  joints  were  thrown  out  and  no 
more  of  them  fed  during  the  remainder  of  the  experiment.  In  the 
field  cattle  eat  these  young  shoots  readily  in  the  spring,  while  they 
may  not  molest  the  older  ones,  but  the  reason  is  probably  due  to 
the  condition  of  the  spines  alone.  They  would  probably  eat  the 
older  joints  even  more  readily  than  the  younger  ones  were  they  not 
so  formidably  protected. 

The  leathery  texture  of  the  young  joints  appears  to  be  responsible 
for  the  fact  that  the  cow  refused  to  eat  them  when  more  palatable 
material  was  fed.  All  who  have  worked  with  prickly  pear,  espe- 
cially botanists  who  have  attempted  to  prepare  specimens,  have 
noticed  that  the  young  joints  are  very  tough  and  leathery.  Indeed, 
it  is  with  considerable  difficulty  that  one  is  able  to  split  a  young 
joint  lengthwise  with  a  knife,  while  the  older  ones  are  very  easily  cut. 

It  was  a  constant  surprise  to  observe  the  fondness  of  the  cattle 
for  the  singed  pear.  During  the  latter  part  of  the  first  period  the 
temperature  was  unusually  low  for  southern  Texas.  The  United 
States  Weather  Bureau  records  show  a  maximum  of  only  35°  and  a 
minimum  of  13°  F.  on  February  13.  It  will  be  seen  that  a  little 
extra  sorghum  hay  was  fed  on  this  day.  Regardless  of  the  fact  that 
the  pear  was  frozen  solid  all  day  the  cows  ate  90  and  92  pounds, 
respectively.  This  was  the  coldest  day  of  the  winter,  but  not  the 
only  day  when  the  cows  ate  frozen  pear  with  apparent  relish. 

CONDITION   OF  THE    ANIMALS. 

The  distance  of  the  ranch  from  any  convenient  means  of  weighing 
prevented  the  securing  of  data  on  the  important  point  of  the  weight 


18  FEEDING    PRICKLY    PEAR   TO    STOCK    IN   TEXAS. 

of  the  cows,  but  careful  observations  were  made  by  several  individ- 
uals, both  those  having  immediate  charge  of  the  animals  and  those 
who  saw  them  only  occasionally.  All  agreed  that  the  condition  of 
both  cows  continued  to  improve  up  to  the  end  of  the  experiment. 

Of  course,  the  well-known  laxative  effect  of  prickly  pear  was  evi- 
dent during  the  entire  time  that  it  was  fed,  being  less  noticeable 
while  sorghum  was  a  part  of  the  ration;  but  at  no  time  was  it 
thought  that  the  cows  scoured  to  any  injurious  extent,  even  during 
the  period  when  pear  was  the  only  roughage  fed  them.  The  fact 
that  they  apparently  gained  in  flesh,  milked  well,  and  began  shed- 
ding earlier  than  the  general  herd  appears  to  be  sufficient  proof  that 
they  were  in  good  physical  condition  during  the  entire  period. 

INFLUENCE    OF    PEAR    ON    QUALITY    OF    MILK. 

The  statement  has  frequently  been  made  that  the  quality  of  milk 
is  injuriously  affected  when  pear  is  fed  to  dair}'^  cows,  and  it  seemed 
important  to  secure  data  on  this  point  in  connection  with  this  exper- 
iment. Mr.  Sinclair  has  fed  pear  to  his  herd  for  two  to  four  months 
each  year  for  six  or  eight  years,  and  no  complaint  has  ever  been 
received  from  customers  which  could  in  any  way  be  attributed  to 
pear  feeding. 

During  the  time  when  one  of  the  cows  was  on  a  full  roughage 
ration  of  pear — that  is,  on  rice  bran,  cotton-seed  meal,  and  pear  with 
no  sorghum  hay — five  persons  tested  the  milk  to  determine  whether 
any  odor  or  flavor  was  imparted  by  such  a  ration.  Morning's  milk 
was  examined  in  the  evening  with  the  result  that  four  persons  could 
not  detect  any  change,  deleterious  or  otherwise,  while  one  was  in 
doubt. 

PRICKLY  PEAR  IN  RATION  OF  BEEF  CATTLE. 
CONDITIONS    OF    THE    EXPERIMENT. 

As  stated  previously,  an  effort  was  made  to  keep  the  steers  fed 
in.  the  beef  experiment  under  conditions  as  nearly  similar  to  those 
prevailing  in  the  general  pear-feeding  region  as  possible.  The  steers 
selected  were  from  the  general  Coleman  herd,  a  miscellaneous  lot,  a 
majority  of  which  were  bred  near  Cactus,  Tex.  They  were  consid- 
erably above  the  average  of  the  cattle  in  the  neighborhood,  or  even 
on  Mr.  Coleman's  ranch.     (See  pi.  2,  fig.  1.) 

The  intention  was  to  feed  one  carload  (20  head)  of  steers,  but 
when  the  animals  were  gathered  27  head  were  weighed  and  put  in 
the  pen.  The  additional  7  head  were  not  removed  until  the  close 
of  the  experiment,  but  only  the  original  carload  of  20  head  was  shipped 
at  the  close  of  the  feeding,  the  others  being  shipped  with  a  miscella- 
neous lot  of  cattle  to  another  market. 


PRICKLY    PEAR    IN   RATION    OF    BEEP   CATTLE.  19 

The  feeding  lot  was  an  ordinary  open  mesquite  "trap,"  containing 
approximately  4  acres  of  ground,  and  inclosed  by  a  wire  fence.  No 
shelter  of  any  kind  was  furnished  the  cattle.  The  scrub  mesquite 
brush  in  and  surrounding  the  feed  lot  offered  very  little  protection. 
This  might  not  be  a  serious  consideration  in  an  average  southern 
Texas  winter,  but  during  the  past  winter  protection  would  have 
enhanced  very  considerably  the  gains  made. 

METHOD    OF    FEEDING. 

The  method  of  feeding  in  this  case  was  exactly  that  employed 
throughout  the  pear  region  of  Texas  wherever  the  pear  chopper  is 
used.  The  largest  and  most  woody  plants  available  were  used,  from 
localities  where  the  growth  was  most  vigorous  and  healthy.  They 
were  chopped  with  one  of  the  common  pear  choppers,  but  without 
singeing. 

In  this  experiment  the  feed  was  gathered  from  the  field  twice  each 
day — at  about  7  o'clock  in  the  morning  and  3  o'clock  in  the  after- 
noon— cut,  and  fed  immediately.  The  chop  was  shoveled  into  the 
ordinary  feeding  troughs,  and  the  cotton-seed  meal  was  sprinkled 
upon  it  in  such  quantity  as  would  give  the  desired  number  of  pounds 
for  each  animal. 

With  this  method  of  feeding  it  was  not  feasible  to  furnish  more 
pear  than  the  animals  would  eat,  because  of  the  necessary  waste  of 
meal,  but  a  constant  effort  was  made  to  give  them  all  they  would 
clean  up. 

WEIGHING. 

Although  the  steers  used  were  probably  more  gentle  than  the  aver- 
age stockers  of  southern  Texas  it  was  found  impracticable  to  secure 
weekly  weighings,  as  was  the  intention  in  the  beginning.  The  two 
weighings  that  were  made,  it  is  believed,  cost  the  gains  of  an  entire 
week.  All  the  animals  became  considerably  excited,  and  once  or 
twice  threatened  to  stampede. 

On  account  of  the  apparently  good  gains  being  made  by  this  lot 
of  steers  Mr.  Coleman  decided  to  put  another  herd  of  100  head'  on 
feed  in  an  adjoining  pen.  At  first  these  also  did  very  nicely,  but 
they  soon  became  wild,  with  no  apparent  cause,  and  it  was  decided 
to  turn  them  out  into  pasture  again. 

The  experimental  lot  did  not  get  nearly  as  wild  as  the  others, 
even  with  the  weighing,  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  final  gains 
were  very  materially  reduced  by  the  excitement  caused  during  the 
weighing.  It  should  be  stated  that  the  greatest  care  was  exercised 
by  Mr.  Goleman  in  the  handling  of  these  steers  during  the  entire 
period.  Aside  from  the  necessary  handling  and  weighing  they  were 
subjected  to  no  circumstances  to  excite  them. 


20 


FEEDING    PRICKLY   PEAR   TO    STOCK    IN   TEXAS. 


SHIPMENT    AND    SALE    OF    STEERS. 

On  the  evening  of  April  28  the  final  weighing  was  made  and  the 
steers,  after  receiving  about  a  one-half  ration  on  the  morning  of 
April  29,  were  driven  into  the  stock  pens  at  Encinal  and  loaded  into 
a  car.  They  did  not  leave  the  yard,  however,  until  the  following 
morning.  They  were  consigned  to  Fort  Worth,  where  they  were 
sold  at  $4.25  per  hundredweight  on  a  break  in  the  market  on  May  2. 
The  account  sales  showed  21,560  pounds  to  be  the  weight  of  the  20 
steers,  giving  a  loss  in  transit  of  1,770  pounds,  or  88^  pounds  for 
each  animal.  This  shrinkage  is  not  considered  excessive  by  Mr. 
Coleman,  whose  records  of  shipments  from  the  ranch  during  past 
years  are  probably  not  excelled  for  accuracy  by  those  of  any  ranch 
in  Texas.  In  some  shipments  the  shrinkage  has  been  greater  and 
in  others  less  than  in  this  instance  in  the  case  of  steers  shipped  off 
the  range. 

THE    FEEDS    USED. 

The  following  table  shows  the  kinds  and  quantities  of  the  feeds 
used  by  periods: 


Date. 


Days 
in  each 
jx-riod. 


Total 
pounds 
of  pear. 


Average 
pounds 
of  pear 
per  head 
per  day. 


Total 
pounds 
01  cotton- 
seed 
meal. 


Average 

pounds 

ofeotton- 

se<!d 
meal  per 
head  per 

day. 


Jan.  15-Jan.  21. 
Jan.  22-Jan.  28. 
Jan.  29-Feb.  3. 
Feb.  4-Feb.  10. 
Feb.  11-Feb.  17. 
Feb.  18-Feb.  25. 
Feb.  26-Mar.  4. 
Mar.  5-Mar.  11. 
Mar.  12-Mar.  18. 
Mar.  19-Mar.  25. 
Mar.  26-Apr.  1. 
Apr.  2-Apr.  8. 
Apr.  9-Apr.  15. 
Apr.  16-Apr.  22. 
Apr.  23-Apr.  28. 
Apr.  29 


16,890 
17,567 
15, 195 
18,345 
15, 625 
20,395 
19,040 
19,655 
19,975 
19, 315 
18,840 
18, 715 
18,850 
19, 175 
16, 275 
2,100 


89.36 
92-.  94 
93..79 
97.06 
82.67 
94.42 
100.74 
103.99 
105.  69 
102. 19 
99.68 
99.02 
99.74 
101.  45 
100.46 
77.77 


220 

300 

350 

700 

700 

800 

1,050 

1,050 

1,050 

1,050 

1,050 

1,050 

1,050 

1,050 

900 


1.16 
1.59 
2.16 
3.70 
3.70 
3.70 
5.55 
5.55 
5.55 
5.55 
5.55 
5.55 
5.55 
5.55 
5.55 
2.96 


Average. 


96.31 


4.31 


GENERAL   OBSERVATIONS. 

In  spite  of  the  very  unfavorable  weather,  and  adverse  conditions 
generally,  the  gains  made  were  comparatively  satisfactory.  Of 
course  the  gains  were  not  as  great  as  those  of  stall-fed  cattle,  nor  even 
those  obtained  in  the  older  and  better  established  feeding  sections. 
However,  the  cost  of  a  pound  of  grain,  computed  from  the  above 
tables  and  data,  is  more  favorable  to  the  combined  cotton-seed  meal 
and  prickly-pear  ration  than  one  unfamiliar  with  prickly  pear  as  a 
roughage  would  suppose.  On  an  average  77.6  pounds  of  prickly 
pear  and  2^  pounds  of  cotton-seed  meal  produced  1  pound  of  gain; 


BuL.  No.  91    B.  A.  I. 


Plate  3. 


i 

1 

fcs.  ■!  ^ 

^ 

HI 

^i_ 

■nvi*  ^V 

t- 

y^      %■ 

>r|^yyj 

^^M 

■f^ 

*^^Sjt 

^B  Jt^B^I  ^1 

ff^^^x^   ^* 

r^^^H 

1 

g 

I^^M 

1 

MT' 

^wS^^^H 

■ 

1 

1 

1 

i. 

..-  --  :^-^   .  . 

i^ ^^^^^^^^^^1 

Fig.  1.— Machinery  Ready  to  Chop  Pear. 


■ 

■■■ 

■■ 

^^^^^^^^^ 

r 

\ 

-^^ 

Fig.  2.— Chopped  Pear  Ready  for  Feeding,  on  the  Coleman  Ranch. 


GENERAL    OBSERVATIONS.  21 

or,  in  actual  outlay  of  cash  for  feed  at  the  prevailing  price  for  meal 
of  $23.75  per  ton,  1  pound  of  gain  cost  2.97  cents'  worth  of  cotton- 
seed meal,  which  is  not  at  all  excessive  for  the  cost  of  grain  to  feed 
with  pear. 

The  cost  of  labor  can  not  be  accurately  determined  for  this  experi- 
ment because  of  the  small  number  of  animals  which  were  fed,  but 
the  data  furnished  here,  together  with  the  experience  of  Mr.  Goleman 
and  others  in  feeding  pear  during  the  past  ten  years,  enables  one  to 
make  a  very  close  estimate  of  the  necessary  expenses.  The  actual 
conditions  were  that  one  man  did  all  of  the  feeding  during  the  entire 
period,  and  was  assisted  in  the  chopping  by  three  other  men — an 
engmeerand  two  laborers.  He  in  return  assisted  them  in  chopping 
two  loads  for  each  one  that  he  used,  and  their  loads  represented 
about  50  per  cent  more  pear  than  his.  All  pear  was  hauled  an 
average  distance  of  1  mile,  and  each  load  was  weighed  on  the  way 
from  the  field  to  the  chopper,  necessitating  a  little  extra  travel. 
While  all  that  was  required  of  the  man  in  charge  of  the  feeding  was 
the  care  of  these  animals,  his  time  was  not  entirely  occupied. 
Indeed,  it  is  believed  he  would  have  had  little  difficulty  in  feeding 
100  head  under  these  conditions.  In  actual  practice  much  less  labor 
would  be  required,  both  on  account  of  greater  convenience  in  feeding 
and  greater  economy  of  time. 

In  Bulletin  No.  74  of  the  Bureau  of  Plant  Industry  estimates  are 
made  which  indicate  that  eight  men  can  feed  a  maintenance  ration  to 
1,200  head  of  cattle.  Reducing  this  number  to  the  extent  necessary 
to  compensate  for  the  additional  care  required  in  the  feeding  of  a 
fattening  ration,  it  is  estimated  that  eight  men  could  without  doubt 
feed  1,000  head  of  cattle.  Assuming  the  figures  of  cost  in  the  publi- 
cation mentioned  to  be  correct,  the  total  expense  of  labor,  gasoline, 
and  interest  on  machinery  would  be  in  the  neighborhood  of  90  cents 
for  each  animal  for  a  period  of  one  hundred  days. 

The  value  of  the  pear  is  not  included  in  this  estimate,  and,  as  in 
the  previous  experiment,  it  was  not  possible  to  determine  its  cost. 
Should  one  ask  a  rancher  in  southern  Texas  to  estimate  upon  this 
point,  his  answer  would  invariably  be,  "Nothing."  In  fact,  it  is 
questionable  whether  the  pastures  are  not  actually  improved  by 
cutting  off  the  older,  larger  plants.  As  in  all  fattening  experjments, 
the  increase  in  weight  alone  does  not  represent  the  entire  gain;  the 
improvement  and  enhanced  valuation  of  .the  whole  carcass  must  be 
taken  into  consideration,  but  all  of  the  estimates  are  based  upon 
value  of  the  increased  weight  alone. 

The  relation  of  gain  to  feed  consumed  may  be  summed  up  as 
follows: 

1.  Average  daily  ration  of  pear  for  each  head  of  stock,  96.31 
pounds. 


22  FEEDING    PRICKLY    PEAR   TO    STOCK    IN    TEXAS. 

2.  Average  daily  gain  for  each  head,  1.75  pounds. 

3.  Amount  of  pear  fed  for  1  pound  of  gain,  55.03  pounds. 

4.  Amount  of  cotton-seed-  meal  required  for  1  pound  of  gain,  2^ 
pounds. 

5.  Cost  of  cotton-seed  meal  for  1  pound  of  gain,  2.97  cents. 

6.  Cost  of  pear  per  1  pound  of  gain  0.514  cent. 

7.  Cost  of  feed  per  1  pound  of  gain,  3.48  cents. 

THE  NATURE  OF  CHOPPED  PEAR. 

Since  many  erroneous  statements  have  appeared  regarding  the 
nature  of  pear  chop,  and  since  the  publications  of  the  Department  on 
the  subject  have  been  misinterpreted,  this  seems  to  be  a  fitting  place 
to  put  in  a  few  words  of  explanation  regarding  the  work  of  the  pear 
chopper  and  the  character  of  the  feed  produced. 

A  description  of  the  pear  choppers  is  given  in  a  previous  bulletin" 
and  need  not  be  repeated  here.  (See  also  pi.  3,  fig.  1.)  The  con- 
struction of  the  machine  indicates  that  the  pear  may  be  reduced  to 
very  fine  consistency.  But  pieces  6  inches  square  may  be  found  in 
the  chop  when  ready  to  feed.  Plate  3,  figure  2,  shows  this  condition 
fairly  well.  The  material  is  there  represented  in  the  rear  end  of  a 
wagon  as  it  was  thrown  out  of  the  machine  by  the  centrifugal  force 
of  the  revolving  wheel  (pi.  3,  fig.  1).  Large  pieces  are  shown;  but  no 
special  injury  to  the  cattle  was  observed  from  feeding  them.  It  is 
evident  that  all  pear  joints  fed  to  the  machine  at  right  angles  to  the 
knives,  as  described  in  the  publication  referred  to  above,  will  be  cut 
into  pieces  §  to  1^  inches  in  length,  depending  upon  the  setting  of 
the  shear  plate ;  but  whatever  material  happens  to  be  fed  in  such  a  way 
as  to  reach  the  machine  in  the  plane  of  the  knives  will  pass  through 
in  large  flat  pieces.  Often  a  piece  of  joint  4  to  6  inches  square,  or 
even  a  whole  joint,  will  pass  through  the  machine  with  practically 
an  uninjured  epidermis..  The  material  never  is  macerated  or  reduced 
to  a  pulp.  In  spite  of  this,  however,  little  or  no  evil  effect  results 
from  the  spines,  even  in  the  case  of  joints  which  pass  through  the 
machine  uncut.  The  dead  and  exceedingly  brittle  spines  have 
invariably  received  enough  rough  treatment  in  passing  through  the 
machine  to  reduce  very  perceptibly  the  injury  which  they  can  do. 
There  is  no  denying  the  fact  that  stock  which  are  fed  pear  chopped 
in  this  way  are  somewhat  annoyed  by  the  spines.  There  is  always 
more  or  less  slobbering  as  the  result  of  the  spines  sticking  into  the 
membranes  of  the  mouth,  but  the  effect  does  not  appear  to  be  a 
serious  one. 

It  has  been  frequently  stated  that  the  spines  are  softened  by  the 
juices  of  the  plant  in  the  chopped  material  to  such  an  extent  as  to 

(t  Bulletin  No.  74,  Bureau  of  Plant  Industry,  p.  17,  Pis.  II  and  III. 


THE  NATURE  OF  CHOPPED  PEAR.  23 

render  them  innocuous — an  idea  which  is  entirely  erroneous.  It  is 
always  the  practice  to  feed  immediately  after  chopping.  Indeed,  it  is 
doubtful  whether  the  spines  would  become  very  materially  softened 
before  the  chop  would  ferment  to  such  an  extent  as  to  render  it  unfit 
to  feed.  The  effect  upon  the  spines  is  entirely  one  of  abrasion; 
they  are  broken  to  such  an  extent  that  the  injury  they  cause  is  very 
much  reduced.  Cattle  can  handle  pretty  rough  feed,  and  they  eat 
much  of  the  Texas  pear  as  it  stands  in  the  pastures.  It  is  believed . 
that  if  the  spines  lay  tightly  against  the  surface  of  the  joint,  instead 
of  approximately  at  right  angles  to  it,  the  cattle  could  graze  the  pear 
with  but  little  difficulty.  It  should  be  emphasized  that  in  pear 
chopping  the  spines  are  not  softened  by  the  juices  and  the  material 
is  not  macerated,  but  that  the  chances  of  the  spines  doing  injury 
are  reduced  to  a  minimum  by  the  rough  treatment  which  they  receive 
from  the  machine.  It  is  also  evident  to  anyone  watching  the  opera- 
tion of  a  pear  machine  that  many  of  the  spines  are  winnowed  out  and 
removed  from  the  product  during  the  process  of  chopping. 


O 


A    001  083  190  "7 


